It certainly seems to have worked fine for the three games that I have played so far with the 60s, and the Frigate movement works equally well for the 50s. So I would agree that we probably do not need to worry overmuch.
Rob.
Printable View
It certainly seems to have worked fine for the three games that I have played so far with the 60s, and the Frigate movement works equally well for the 50s. So I would agree that we probably do not need to worry overmuch.
Rob.
Somehow the gunport designs changed... :question:
Here are the pictures of Commerce de Bordeaux and Bucentaure.
Ooooooohhhhh looking at the base positioning, the Bucentaure is smaller than the Commerse........ dejavu here
Oh, FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU[bleep] Here we go again...
Query out to RdM, waiting for reply.
Sorreeee but by my reconing, using the reference books I have, Bucentaur should be around 3m longer which is 3mm longer than the Commerse, I could handle being the same size, but looking at the picture of both models together Bucentaure is visibly shorter.
Dont think its my eyes, but will happily be proved incorrect here.
That could well be the end of my eighties dream!
Rob.
Chris, also bear in mind those photos are not a direct comparison--angles are different, but I agree Bucentaure does appear underlength.
ARE YOU 1/1200-OR-BUST TWITS OUT THERE FINALLY HAPPY NOW THAT YOU'VE F***ED THINGS UP FOR THE REST OF US?!\
Ares had one job. ONE. JOB! And I specifically CAUTIONED them to check sculpt lengths against "Expected Values"... We are SO screwed. It was fun while it lasted, guys, but it's looking like time to start keepin' one hand on the Loud Handle...
Yes understand about angles etc DB, I sincerely hope Im wrong here and it is a matter of angles, but look at the bow of both models, then the stern, then compare the forward red firing arc on both and where the model sits. Looks plainly smaller to me.
Cant say anything about the rest of the wave but I know the 80 gunners should be at least the same size as the Temeraire models at this scale if they following the same scale.
Chris, even with the different angles I agree--Bucentaure distinctly has a problem, and I'm annoyed now because this was *my* project.
You guys lose a tabletop toy, I lose a tangible item I could have shown to prospective employers/clients and say "I helped make THIS happen." :(
If the rest of the wave's like this...
https://youtu.be/vXLLH1eSOZE?t=71
I'd say it's a win for Ares, 'cause now I'm going to have to buy 2 Temeraires to follow in Jonas' footsteps building a Tonnant!
The YouTube linked for me and made me laugh.
New to this so honest question: Has accurate relative sizes among ships been an ongoing issue?
We know Constitution is oversize and also know exactly why, an erroneously oversize (about 15') reported length in one of Winfield's books.
Other than that's it's really only popped up as pushing the limits of tolerance with Wave 3. Here again, traceable to several identifiable issues: use of the wrong length for the Bahama sculpt plus passing it off as much larger ships on most SKU's, and if I'm reading the plans right a unique quirk of the Meregildos design plus the sculpt being designed after the smallest member of the class that combined make the ship seem more off-scale than she really is. That Bucentaure has none of these mitigating factors, and cutting against it that I have repeatedly cautioned about the need to check size/scale before committing to production.
I'm still preparing my report from an inquest on the Wave 3 issue I performed for Ares, and a couple days after it's in their hands I will be releasing it here as well.
So that's why the gunports looking smaller to me... :question:
By the way the 80 gun SoL have a burden value of 6.
Nice! :thumbsup:
I am really sorry that it looks as if all your work on this has been ignored DB.
No one can say that you did not do your utmost to prevent another lash up.
On the plus side, if there can be such a thing in this situation, no one will now notice my Langtons if I slip them into the fleet.
Rob.
We need one in the flesh as it were, maybe my eyes are in fact deceiving me and it is not really an issue.
As for wave 3 I have renamed them into the Montanes class and the San Ildelfonso for when/if Ares redo the sculpts.
I look forward to reading your report DB so as to understand whats gone on.
Then again are we/me the only ones who will care enough?
For the record, nothing underhanded about the split release--I just want them to have a chance to start preparing for reactions whether good bad or ugly; personal preference, if I'm going to say something about somebody I'd rather they hear it direct from me first rather than give a "Truman Firing MacArthur" situation.
If they're sneaking in a midcourse scale change, I expect it to be a mortal wound to this game much as it was to Axis & Allies Miniatures...
It will be really unfortunate if the models, once distributed, will end up being shorter than a Temeraire. This is a well-documented class, with even a model at the Trianon (Friedland) realized between 1810 and 1818, considering also all DB work and efforts, I think it would be difficult to excuse such a mistake (if it is a mistake). I think you need to stay the course.
Comparing the 2 models (and the Greenwich draught) I think the Ares one catches the distinctive lines of the class but the gun ports look too small, and personally I don’t like the choice of a cross-jack for 1800 onward ships (but facts/evidences could prove me wrong, what do you think DB?).
Attachment 29965
Attachment 29966
I just noticed the spanker on Bucentaure. It seems kind of old fashioned. That style went out of use around 1750. Perhaps it was meant for Bonhomme Richard, which got a more modetn one.
Chris, accuracy in scale and representation is important to me too. I would imagine many who enjoy historical gaming feel the same way.
:thumbsup: Cheers Dobbs
I suggest we call it what it is, a "lateen", and save "spanker" (or is it "driver"?) for the larger, later, two-boom style.
Somewhere between Waves 2 and 3, something went terribly wrong at Ares. Nothing's going to change until the problem's found and fixed, and with some fundamental corporate-culture issues, I think we're going to have to be the ones to dig facts out of people and figure out what.
One of you guys mind blasting the Bucentaure Issues List all over their Facebook?
Please forgive my English, I understand I used the wrong word mentioning a “cross-jack”. What is its name? It is not a “gaff”, nor a “spanker”. "lateen" is the sail only or can be used for both?
Not tryin' to chew you out, Franco. I *think* that style of sail is called "lateen rig," more commonly seen as the main sails on Mediterranean and Northeast Africa/Southwest Asia-area designs like galleys, xebecs and dhows. The important thing is, as we all appear to agree :) , that style of sail has no place on a ship built using some of the last, best and most advanced engineering and technology the "Wooden Walls" era had to offer.
And Franco, since you asked directly or my opinion, I'll gie it no less directly. Under-sized, Under-gunned, Mis-sailed... Lemon Yellow was an apt choice for this model, because it really is a lemon and if the final release comes out this bad I won't be buying ANY of this wave.
Quote:
Oh, FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU[bleep] Here we go again...
Its all kicking off again!Quote:
I just noticed the spanker on Bucentaure. It seems kind of old fashioned
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACga3t6O1KQ
I think the same: it doesn't look right, the size is wrong, the gun ports are wrong, the sail plant is wrong and it looks like my kids' (old and mothballed) "yellow tub-marine" and unfortunately it is crap (lemon, gosh it took me some time to remember it, I love refreshing my English). I was really looking forward to add them to my fleet.
Attachment 29968
DB, Spanker and driver are interchangeable. It indicates the location and function of the sail. Lateen is a type of sail , like describing a topsail as a square sail. It is a lateen spanker, as compared to the gaff spanker (or the intermediate version like the 50's have).
I figured out that the Artesien and the Portland minis have their mizzens reversed. I found a picture of an Artesien with the lateen-hybrid style spanker, and the fact that they were built in the 70's makes it more likely than the Portlands having them, being built in the 80's. Also, on the ship card artwork the Artesien has the lateen-hybrid.
Thanks, Dobbs--my brain's fried, probably too many "WTF?!"s with things of late from Wave 3 and this.
I think I've died and gone to Hell... :(
That certainly explains a lot Dobbs.
Well picked up.
Another job for the old scalpel then.
Rob.
Good news,
I contacted ARES and e-mailed them my remarks on wave 3 and 4 models, they will examine them. For the moments Roberto told me that the Mahonesa will be about 10% larger than in picture while the Bucentaure is about the size of a Temeraire.
If this turn out as stated then as you say good news, as long as the Bucentaure is at least the same size as a Temeraire is will pass muster, but the pic certainly does not look like it does. I look forward to seeing one in the flesh
A ray of hope shines through the gloom then shipmates!
Rob.
Finally orderd 3 of the new wave 4 ships. :moneygone:
HMS Agamemnon, Bucentaure & HMS Hamadryad to have another burden-4-frigate for the RN.
I'm curious how the new ships look loke on the table.
Order was really small because I invested in a new computer these days and Doncater is "ante portas". :wink:
The under-sizing and rigging-mixups of Wave 3 appear to be continued, despite my best efforts. :(
All I want is my order to be sent.................Ares games shows August arrival...................well what day in August?????????????????????????Arrrggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh my gaming table is waiting for the ships:cry::cannonboom::pray:
There are plenty of Wave 4 ships at Gencon :happy: